shalini: its the same principle raptor.
The trouble with yyour fully qualified creation scientists is that most scientists and scientific institutions wont touch them with a barge pole because they are lousy scientists.
If what they said was true some of it would be supported by science. Plus many of them are supported by very dubious american right wing organisations.

Raptor: So what else is "like evolution"? Why would an all-powerful God need anything like evolution? He has told us very clearly but you don't believe Him and would obviously prefer almost any other speculative explanation except the biblical one.

shalini: Why would an all powerful God need to create us at all? Mystery, mystery.
You seem to want to box God in. Label him. Do not touch.

Chellebaby: You actually just asked why would an all powerful God need to create us all?! Have you ever read your Bible? Why would God leave things to chance? I do believe the Bible the Bible says we are all fearfully wonderfully made.

shalini: Don't worry your head about it.

Chellebaby: I don't as I know the truth and know I have a place in Heaven. I do however fear for you and where you will end up. Have you shown enough love lately to earn your place?!
Can I ask is there a measuring stick so you can see if you have shown enough love to get into Heaven? What happens when you show hate ? Do you have to reset your counter?
Romans 3:23
For all have sinned, and come short of the glory of God;
Romans 3:10
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:
Titus 3:4-6 King James Version (KJV)
4 But after that the kindness and love of God our Saviour toward man appeared,
5 Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us, by the washing of regeneration, and renewing of the Holy Ghost;
6 Which he shed on us abundantly through Jesus Christ our Saviour;
Ephesians 2:8-10 King James Version (KJV)
8 For by grace are ye saved through faith; and that not of yourselves: it is the gift of God:
9 Not of works, lest any man should boast.
SORRY I FORGOT YOU CAN'T READ LARGE POSTS!

Correction it is NOT Christians that are being called the love brigade. It is indeed the fake Christians with their fake love everyone gospel. What makes the gospel even more ludicrous is the fact that those of you on here who claim that false gospel FAIL regularly to show LOVE to any of your enemies. It would be laughable if it wasn't so dangerous and leading people to Hell.

John Allen Chau, 26, of Vancouver, Wash., an Instagram adventurer who also led missionary trips abroad, traveled to the Andaman Islands — an Indian territory in the Bay of Bengal — this month to make contact with members of the tiny Sentinelese tribe, police said. The tribe, which has remained isolated for centuries, rejects contact with the wider world and reacts with hostility and violence to attempts at interaction by outsiders. The island is off-limits to visitors under Indian law.

Chau’s riveting journal of his last days, shared with The Washington Post by his mother, shows a treacherous journey by dark in a small fishing boat to the area where the small tribe lived in huts. The men — about 5 feet 5 inches tall with yellow paste on their faces, Chau wrote — reacted angrily as he tried to attempt to speak their language and sing “worship songs” to them, he wrote.

“I hollered, ‘My name is John, I love you and Jesus loves you,’ ” he wrote in his journal. One of the juveniles shot at him with an arrow, which pierced his waterproof Bible, he wrote.

?“You guys might think I’m crazy in all this but I think it’s worthwhile to declare Jesus to these people,” he wrote in a last note to his family on Nov. 16, shortly before he left the safety of the fishing boat to meet the tribesmen on the island. “God, I don’t want to die,” he wrote.

[Sorry for a WTF source, but the only non-wingnut sites covering this were Liveleak and Portland PD homesite itself.]

On Saturday, a 19-year-old so-called "anti-fascist" protester was arrested after she punched and spat on demonstrators at a #HimToo rally in Portland.

The #HimToo rally was organized by conservative activist Haley Adams to draw awareness to the sexual victimization of men and the falsely accused. Left-wing counter-protesters showed up to disrupt the event. Demonstrators and at least one reporter on site were harassed and assaulted by the agitators. The rally ended with a total of six arrests.

In footage captured by independent journalist and Quillette Magazine editor Andy C. Ngo, a young Antifa counter-protester later identified as Hannah R. McClintock by the Portland Police Bureau confronts male demonstrators at the rally. Backed by a chant of "We believe survivors" by her fellow Antifa activists, McClintock gets herself into a fighting stance and waves on the demonstrators to apparently engage in a physical altercation with her. She also spits on them as she repeatedly yells the word "b****."

Later in the video, McClintock physically assaults the male demonstrators.

Two #HimToo activists are heard in the video directing their fellow protesters not to fight back against the female and to "calm down."

"Let it happen, let it happen," says one of the protesters. "Don't touch her. Let her attack us, let her attack us."

Apparently failing to elicit the reaction she wants, the aggressive Antifa female continues with her antics. McClintock repeatedly gets in the men's faces and spits on them yet again.

"It's all good, it's all good," a #HimToo protester says calmly in response. "Let her spit. It's all good."

McClintock assaults a #HimToo protester once again before a swarm of Portland officers take her away.

"McClintock was arrested near Southwest 3rd Avenue and Southwest Taylor Street. McClintock was lodged at the Multnomah County Jail on a charge of Harassment," says a press release from the Portland Police Bureau.

We have become so apostate and hardened nowadays that we refer to good things as being "wicked." For example: Here's a Google search for the phrase, "wicked dude!" Satan is effectively confusing young people today by redefining Biblical terms; thus removing the only words in society that demonize sin.

I recently went through a MacDonald's drive-thru and was offended by their advertisement for "wicked" Happy Meal toys. It is a sin to misuse Biblical words. People often call their food "sinfully delicious," but this is wrong. Sin is a serious matter with God, and we shouldn't make light of it. TV's late night shows continually sport and joke about homosexuality, adultery, and every sexual sin imaginable; but God says... fools make a mock at sin (Proverb 14:9). We are living in a nation of fools. Sin sends people to Hell and is a serious matter.

Dr Lisa Nolland spells out why the idea is wrong and must now be consigned to the cemetery of thought

Both the church and society have long struggled with the issue of homosexuality.

Is it a crime? Is it an illness? Is it a sin? Is it simply a normal variant of human sexuality? And what difference do the answers to these questions make in the 'real world'?

A brief recent history

In the 1960s, American singer Anita Bryant campaigned against homosexuality, saying that gay people are made, not born, and that they had to recruit youngsters in order to maintain their numbers. This frightened the heterosexual community, and gay people in turn felt under threat.

Then, in 1973, the American Psychiatric Association was pressurised by gay activists into pronouncing that homosexuality was not an illness, but a normal variant of sexuality. This decision is widely recognised as having been political rather than scientific, but it laid the foundation for the decisive game-changer that was to come.

A game-changer

In 1989 two brilliant Harvard graduates, Kirk and Madsen, wrote the seminal After the Ball, which argued that 'for all practical purposes, gays should be considered to have been "born gay"-- even though sexual orientation, for most humans, seems to be the product of a complex interaction between innate predispositions and environmental factors during childhood...'

The brilliance of this strategy was twofold: by arguing for 'born gay', gays were able to qualify for special treatment as a vulnerable 'minority group'. Also this strategy elicited much more sympathy for them in the public domain because 'it's not their fault'. That public sympathy remains to this day, and 'orientation' is considered to be immutable.

Ignoring inconvenient truth

In 2007, Professor Michael King made a submission to the Church of England on behalf of the Royal College of Psychiatrists. Embarrassingly for the College, the document was criticised by CORE Issues Trust as having made no reference to twin studies, which had been central to the scientific discussion for several years.

These studies showed that if one identical twin grew up to be gay, the other usually did not. The inescapable conclusion was that, since both had the same genes and hormonal experiences in the womb, the difference in sexuality must be accounted for mainly by their different experiences and perceptions during early childhood. Gay people were not born that way.

All of this was absent from the College's submission. Missing too was any reference to a major Danish study, published just the previous year, which found 'evidence that childhood family experiences are important determinants of heterosexual and homosexual marriage decisions in adulthood.'

The Royal College's submission claimed that:
• Causation was 'biological', so a person is born gay
• One's sexual orientation is 'fundamental' and thus immutable
• If one tries to change one's sexuality (by therapy) one is liable to be harmed and cited several scientific studies to support these claims.

Importance of postnatal

Unfortunately, the studies didn't support their arguments and, when challenged, the College quietly issued a new position statement in 2014 which says: 'Sexual orientation is determined by a combination of biological and postnatal environmental factors' -- exactly what Kirk and Madsen had recognised but concealed 25 years previously. The College also now acknowledged that 'it is not the case that sexual orientation is immutable or might not vary to some extent during a person's life'.

The word 'postnatal' in the above affirmation is very important because it refers to events that happen after birth -- so the person was not born that way. Yet Professor King continues in denial: 'It is deeply misleading to state that people are not "born gay" and that their sexual desires can change.' He cites inter alia the work of the respected lesbian scholar Lisa Diamond.

Out of the bag

Unfortunately for Professor King, Lisa Diamond's research cannot be enlisted to support his claims. In July 2015, the New Scientist published her remarkable article, 'Sexuality is fluid -- it's time to get past "born this way".' She states: '... whenever someone comes up with a tag line like 'we're born that way', they ultimately do everyone involved a disservice. It is time to just take the whole idea of sexuality as immutable, the born this way notion, and just come to a consensus as scientists and as legal scholars that we need to put it to rest. It's unscientific ... it's totally irrelevant and just politics.'

This amounts to a complete unravelling of the strategy of Kirk and Madsen. But 'born gay' has done its work: the general public has been duped. Now they need to hear: 'You were misled. "Born gay" is dead and was never true!'

This does not of itself mean that therapy can help every individual to change their sexual 'orientation'. It does, however, open up that possibility, which gay activists have long sought to close down.

In California, now, the most draconian legislation to date is being promoted; will the church even realize what is happening and respond?

However, brave clients who have benefited from therapy are beginning to make their voices heard. CORE Issues Trust's excellent (but banned!) DVD, Voices of the Silenced, is being well received. One can purchase it here: https://www.core-issues.org/vos-dvd

May I suggest ordering a copy and seeing for yourself? If you think it beneficial, do pass it on to your church team.

Truncated responses

Some other groups are unwilling to explore the possibilities of change for those who have unwanted Same Sex Attraction (SSA). In my opinion, they are unable to offer a full analysis of what is going on, or engage with how best to respond.

Though individuals are undoubtedly helped through these ministries -- and God bless all the good they do -- the real threat is a pernicious ideology: Cultural Marxism, with its determination to stamp out 'bourgeois' values, and its totalitarian instincts. LGBT issues are but one aspect of what is far more encompassing, and which is rapidly enveloping the West, even the church.

Indeed, there appears to be little awareness that basic freedom is being destroyed, professionals forced to spout the 'Party Line', and millions of children force-fed a diet of LGBT rights. And on and on...

Getting on the front foot

Apart from exposing 'born gay' fraud and promoting the value of ministries like CORE, I would like to leave my readers with three comments.

First: Christians must fully re-engage with both Genesis and Jesus across issues of human sexuality. Who is immune from the damage of sexual brokenness? But here, to note, homosexuality is not an equivalent to heterosexuality: The former is post-Fall while heterosexuality is God-made and God-given. Our very bodies (with a tiny exception for intersex) are heterosexually designed. There is no such thing as a gay body!

Secondly, why has one narrative of SSA been privileged above others and allowed to dominate and silence them? How is that fair? Sadly, those with different stories are ignored and tacitly marginalised. A few years ago, an ex-gay friend preached at an evangelical church; afterwards he was told by half a dozen or so individuals (separately) that they too had the T-shirt but few knew. It was too risky to 'come out' in that way. Voices of the Silenced allows those who have been helped by therapy to speak. Please listen to them: I think they count too.

Thirdly, a dear friend has long struggled with unwanted SSA. He could locate no apparent reason why he had been cursed with it. Recently, though, there has been progress. Now with his third therapist, lights are coming on. But this would not have happened had he accepted he was 'born gay' or must be gay but celibate. In fact, his SSA is but the symptom of profound trauma, which God is beginning to heal.

funny that there are always some nutters that think that one must have a phobia or hate homosexuals. Sure all judges are suffering from crimephobia and hate the delinquents they judge as well. But then they must also believe that atheists suffer from religiophobia and hate the religious.

That is not to say that there are not pathological cases who do amongst those who are "brights", e.g. suffering from excess self-perceived intelligence.

https://www.virtueonline.or... gives a compilation of failed tactics to justify homosexuality in case you haven't got enough. Peace be upon those who deny their free will in order to attempt to blame God for their unwillingness to control their sinful desires like perfect love below. Surely she fully agrees with Adam to blame God for giving him Eve, still clueless about the teachings of Genesis and the concept of sin, but then logical thinking is a scarce commodity. :-)

I really hate this disgusting song; it is so lacking of respect for God. After all that God has done for us undeserving sinners, people sing praises to how precious their Christmas tree means to them. They don't need to bow upon their hands and knees in worship of their Christmas tree, this song does it for them (in their ungrateful wicked hearts).

O Christmas tree, O Christmas tree
You'll ever be unchanging

I would be utterly ashamed to sing such a horrible song, robbing God of praises due only Him (Isaiah 42:8). If you can sing this song, and truly admire a lousy tree as being so precious to you, then you have serious spiritual issues. I know that some people would argue that it's only a song; but that's the same mentality of television viewers who fail to see the detrimental effects of TV on the developing innocent minds of children (and the detrimental spiritual impact on minds of all ages). Music is not harmless, it is a powerful medium of communication. Most parents think that Santa Claus and Harry Potter are harmless to children. What do you expect from a society where 51,000,000 women have murdered their babies? This Rock 'N' Roll society of rebels and God-haters is of the Devil.

Another thing that irritates me immensely is how they sing reverently toward a Christmas tree, in a slow and dignified manner; but then dishonor the Lord's name by singing an upbeat tempo blues song, bb-ba-bbb-ba-ba Je-Je-Je-susJ-J-J-J-J-J-Je-sus!!! Yeah, oh yeah, whoa, o-o-o, baby, whew! Get down tonight! It's sickening to hear people totally dishonor the name above every other name, Jesus.

Whether removing Christ entirely by referring to X-MAS; or by sinfully teaching children about Santa Claus [who is omnipotent (can fly and do miracles), omnipresent (delivers presents to the whole world in one night) and omniscient (knows if you've been thinking naughty or nice all year round); or by desecrating Jesus' holy name by butchering it in a song... one way or another the wicked are going to rid the world of the name of Jesus, dishonor Him and spitting in God's face in return for His great unconditional love and the gift of His dear Son (John 3:16). We all deserve to burn in Hell for ever!

I hate Christmas, because people have corrupted its meaning into a sinful time of Santa Claus, holiday drunkenness, gluttony, and of idolizing Christmas trees. I saw some Elvis Presley ornaments today at Kmart (decorations for the Christmas tree). It's sickening. Why don't they sell Elvis on the toilet that they found has lifeless drug-addicted body on at only age 42? The king, Elvis, died on his throne! Elvis isn't my hero. While people starve to death, Americans worship Elvis, Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny, Christmas trees... anything except the precious Lord Jesus Christ. We are a society gone wild! Elvis is dead! I mean he is literally dead. Yet many people still idolize Elvis, who was (and still is) a musical icon of sexual immorality, rebellion and religious heathendom.

What's on your tree? According to retired FBI agent Gary Aldrich, in his book, Unlimited Access: An FBI Agent Inside the Clinton White House, pg. 105-106, when First Lady Hillary Clinton was in charge of the White House Christmas tree, her idea of festive ornaments included crack pipes, condoms and various sex toys. Welcome to America!

My own personal opinion is that these people are lower than a snakes belly.If EXTRACTING information is going to save the lives of thousands of innocent people, then I say yes.

All those that say NO, just think of the following:

A terrorist is held and is suspected to know of an upcoming terrorist act in ..... (insert your home town/city)and because of the do-gooders or naysayers, he doesn't give up the information.

The attack goes ahead, YOU lose your family in that attack and then you find out that he knew all along, but wouldn't give up the information that could have prevented the act from going ahead.

Now how do you feel about using whatever could be used to extract that information?

These people, to me, have no case of obeying the human rights act for them. Yes, we are supposed to be civilized and play by the 'rules'...but in some instances, those rules have to be ignored to save lives of thousands of innocent people.

The same question you used can be turned around. How would you feel if your wife/ sister/ mother were tortured, because someone 'thought' they knew something......

But my family are not terrorists! However, I do see your point Vinny and to be VERY honest with you...I would hate them enough to let it happen. If they had terrorist links, they would not belong to my family..as harsh as that may sound.

People have been tortured even tho they are innocent...... and that to me is wrong.

Now, that is a different kettle of fish Vinny. If it OBVIOUS that they have no vital or valid information, then I agree. However, if it is known otherwise, then all is fair in love and war to extract that information.

I have endured the Devil afflicting me ever since my ministry began to grow in 2004. I started the work in 2002. Only the Lord knows the depth of suffering that I've endured. Job didn't have it so bad. The book of Job reads like a biography of my life.

Ha!ha! The plastic trash continent is a hoax that Pope Francis is trying to foist on the public. There are no pictures of it. The article corrected by the blogger tried to say that the ocean was changing temperature at a faster rate than it is scientifically when you do the math right. Fake science.

The exchange began with conservative Twitter commentator Joe Biggs responding to a story on Swalwell's Thursday op-ed in USA Today, titled "Ban assault weapons, buy them back, go after resisters." "@RepSwalwell wants a war," Biggs wrote. "Because that's what you would get."

@Rambobiggs: So basically @RepSwalwell wants a war. Because that’s what you would get. You’re outta your fucking mind if you think I’ll give up my rights and give the gov all the power.

Swalwell responded by noting the government’s nuclear arsenal, writing: "And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I'm sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities."

@RepSwalwell: And it would be a short war my friend. The government has nukes. Too many of them. But they’re legit. I’m sure if we talked we could find common ground to protect our families and communities.

Biggs responded by asking, "So our government would nuke its own country in order to take guns? Wow."

Swalwell countered by asking Biggs to quit being "dramatic" about the casual reference to weapons of mass destruction:

@RepSwalwell: Don’t be so dramatic. You claiming you need a gun to protect yourself against the government is ludicrous. But you seem like a reasonable person. If an assault weapons ban happens, I’m sure you’ll follow law.

@RepSwalwell: Don’t be so dramatic. No one is nuking anyone or threatening that. I’m telling you this is not the 18th Century. The argument that you would go to war with your government if an assault weapons ban was in place is ludicrous and inflames the gun debate. Which is what you want.

On May 21, 2018, Breitbart News reported that Swalwell pushed an "assault weapons" ban that would be based on buybacks with criminal charges for those who did not comply. A similar buyback was used by the Australia government.

Lady Checkmate's headline: "PERSECUTION: ACLU, Washington State Not Letting Up in Crusade Against Christian Florist"

(Cut-and-pasted story from The Daily Signal follows:)

By James Gottry

How would you like to attend a political rally featuring President Donald Trump? How about one featuring former President Barack Obama?

Even better—why don’t you attend both? You get to help decorate the stage. You can even create a banner setting forth that party’s platform.

Given our polarized political climate, it’s a safe bet that most Americans would elect to participate in one rally or the other, but not both. It’s pretty easy to understand why: The whole point of those rallies is to support political positions that, for many of us, are rooted in deeply held beliefs.

This basic, logical principle seems to have eluded Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson and the American Civil Liberties Union. This duo sued Barronelle Stutzman, a 74-year-old floral artist from Richland, Washington, and her business, Arlene’s Flowers, because she declined to participate in and design custom floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding ceremony.

Ferguson and the ACLU say that if Stutzman creates custom arrangements for any wedding, she must create them for same-sex weddings.

But there’s more. Stutzman not only designs custom floral arrangements for weddings, but also attends and personally participates in those sacred events. She decorates the venue with her artistic creations, attends the ceremony, and participates in wedding rituals. But doing that for a same-sex marriage squarely conflicts with her faith.

This is why, even though Stutzman loved her longtime customer and friend Rob Ingersoll, she respectfully declined his invitation to help celebrate his same-sex ceremony. Instead, she referred Ingersoll to other florists in the area who, in her words, she “knew would do an excellent job for this celebration.”

The story could have, and should have, ended there for reasons completely unrelated to whether one agrees with Stutzman’s decision. It should have ended there because it is Stutzman’s decision. Because in a tolerant society, there is room for disagreement. There is room for Democratic Party rallies and Republican Party rallies. There’s even room for Green Party rallies, just don’t expect them to feature helium balloons (or, for that matter, many people).

But the story didn’t end there, because Ferguson was unwilling to allow certain beliefs to go unpunished—namely, a religious belief that marriage is the union of one man and one woman. Despite the fact that he received no complaint from Ingersoll about Stutzman or her business, Ferguson sued this 74-year-old grandmother in her professional and personal capacity. The latter means that all of Stutzman’s personal assets, including her life savings, are at risk.

Stutzman went on to lose her case. After several years of legal proceedings, the Washington Supreme Court later ruled in State of Washington v. Arlene’s Flowers that Stutzman must pay penalties and attorneys’ fees for choosing to live consistently with her conscience.

But the story doesn’t end there, either. Alliance Defending Freedom attorneys representing Stutzman appealed the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court, which vacated the state high court’s ruling and ordered it to reconsider in light of the Supreme Court’s decision in Masterpiece Cakeshop. In that case, the Supreme Court condemned the hostility that Colorado demonstrated toward the faith of cake artist Jack Phillips.

This past Tuesday, Stutzman filed her arguments with the Washington Supreme Court, asking that it reverse the government’s punishment of her, just like the high court did in Phillips’ case.

As the Washington Supreme Court considers Stutzman’s plight once again, it would do well to remember there are people of good will on both sides of the marriage debate. The government should never be hostile to sincere religious beliefs of people of faith, and it should never seek to force anyone to violate their core convictions, especially by participating in a sacred event like a wedding ceremony.

Ours is a diverse society united by a commitment to freedom of belief, not a compulsion to uniformity of thought. A win for Stutzman will reaffirm that foundational American principle.

James Gottry is a lawyer and writer with Alliance Defending Freedom, a Christian legal group founded to preserve and defend religious liberty.

Doug Bristow:
They live as perverted drama queens and will die as perverted drama queens. They feed off of the hate and drama. It is what they live for. This is the heart that is completely devoid of any actual love for anyone but itself. This is the result of living a Godless immoral life.

straight men hate anything with strong feminine energy. the patriarchy pits logic and emotions against each other as if they can’t co-exist. astrology is dominated by lgbt+, ppl who identify as women/enby and POC. feminine energy & interests are always ridiculed.

I’m afraid the whole concept of ‘interfaith relations’ is in error. The Bible is quite clear:

Jesus said to him, I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. (John 14:6 [ESV])

There can be no truth in other religions, they are simply man made, nothing else. There can be no reconciling between them and Christ, for they lead men to damnation. There is no possibility of light mixing with darkness.

Sally Barnes: May I suggest instead of taking one biblical verse to reinforce your views on women you read the Gospels & note Jesus's interraction with women & also his parables. Then Romans and note Pauls gratitude to the many women who supported and TAUGHT him.

Martin Yirrell: But Jesus nowhere appointed women to positions of authority and Paul bases his argument on Creation and the Fall.
You do believe God created in six days, as He says, and that Man fell? That's basic Christian doctrine.

saeed chughtai: I am not sure if most people commenting here know that muslims believe in Jesus (not the son of God). His name is mentioned in quran 25 times as a great messanger of God, same as Mohammad.

Martin Yirrell: If you don't accept that He is God you don't believe in Him.

saeed chughtai; True, not as per your belief, but Muslims revere him, Millions of muslims have their names as eisa (jesus), Muslims do not insult him like some other faiths insults Mohammad.

Martin Yirrell: It is insufficient to revere Him, He must be worshipped as God. To not accept that is to insult Him.

((((Julian Bond)))): It's not an insult

Martin Yirrell: To deny Christ's deity is to insult Him.

((((Julian Bond)))): No, it's not an insult

Martin Yirrell: You deny God His deity - it's an insult. Clearly you don't understand what you think you do.

Just Because a Woman Puts a Penis in Her Mouth Doesn’t Mean She Consented, Says College Sex Expert

?"If you go in somebody’s dorm room and she touches you, and places your penis in her mouth, she has not conveyed consent."
?
An educational consultant who advises students expelled from their colleges for sexual misconduct described a real-life circumstance in which one of her clients was found to not have obtained affirmative consent from a sexual partner, even though the alleged victim had initiated sex by placing his penis in her mouth.

?In a piece for Tablet Magazine published this week, Kat Rosenfield highlighted an October exchange from the popular Radiolab podcast between Kaitlin Prest, a sex-positive ?feminist and podcast producer who often discusses the issue of consent, and educational consultant Hanna Stontland.

During a segment titled "In the No," Stontland and Prest discussed many of the hoarier questions that surround the consent debate, particularly the "gray zone" areas of the issue: The ?myriad ?cases that involve a woman expressing regret over a sexual encounter with a man, but where it's not clear whether she was truly victimized.

During the conversation, Prest, a steadfast supporter of requiring men to obtain affirmative consent from women without exception, was resistant to Stontland's skepticism about the idea that affirmative consent is a salve for the many complications that arise from modern day hookup culture.

Stontland attempted to get Prest to reconsider her unflagging support for affirmative consent as a cure-all by introducing several real-life counterexamples that muddled the issue.

She discussed the case of a recent client suspended from school for two years, even though he had obtained affirmative consent, because his sexual partner claimed the affirmative consent she'd given was produced under duress.

And perhaps most striking was the story Stontland related involving a girl who initiated oral sex with another of her clients but never gave a verbal "yes": "If you go in somebody’s dorm room and she touches you, and places your penis in her mouth, she has not conveyed consent," she said.

Tablet's Rosenfield argued that the current fixation on affirmative consent promoted by many feminists is in fact ?damaging to the same women the movement seeks to defend.
?
?"But if your goal is to protect women at all costs from feeling bad about their choices—because you don’t think they can handle it, and they probably don’t know what they want anyway—then we already have a word for that," she wrote.

"It’s not feminism. It’s paternalism. And it denies women a fundamental if unglamorous freedom: to not just make decisions, but to live with and learn from the consequences of their less-than-great ones."

Martin Yirrell: You are horrified by Jesus' words? And are they God's children? Isn't that the point?
That means that we should be careful how we judge and judge rightly. Homosexuality clearly results in condemnation.
Yes, God is in control, but how do we choose those who are to be elders if we do not judge. 1 Timothy 3.
Read it again, slowly and thoughtfully. You're wrong.

Emily Thomes's uplifting testimony was branded 'conversion therapy' by The Guardian.
The Guardian has denied the transformative effect of salvation by labelling a woman’s moving testimony: “conversion therapy”.

Emily Thomes appeared in a video made by Christian media group Anchored North, who describe themselves as “next generation evangelists, using media and evangelism to reach the lost with the gospel”.

Her video is entitled “Love is love” – a popular slogan among gay rights activists – but her story is one of becoming a Christian, rather than living as a gay woman.

God’s love
Emily grew up in Texas, where she engaged in a “wild”, promiscuous lesbian lifestyle, eventually becoming engaged to a single mother.

In 2014 she joined a bible study, intending to leave at the first mention of her ‘lifestyle’, but instead found herself confronted by her own sin.

“It’s not gay to straight, it’s lost to saved”

Emily Thomes
She became a Christian and turned from her homosexual practices and now shares her testimony to help others.

‘Anti-gay message’
The video has received over two million views on Facebook, but The Guardian attacked the message of gracious, heavenly love, because it sent an ‘anti-gay message’.

The newspaper said Anchored North’s videos amounted to conversion therapy, which the group rejected, saying instead: “What we’re saying is God changes the heart”.

Greg Sukert, co-founder of the website, added that Emily had received abuse and even death threats for her courageous decision to speak out.

‘Abuse’
The Guardian highlighted that conversion therapy is banned in parts of the US, and spoke to pro-LGBT minister-in-training Deb Cuny, who likened the video to her own experience of “conversion therapy classes”.

She said she wanted to “expose all the different subtle practices of the church that don’t have the label of conversion therapy, but clearly are”, claiming that “Any attempt to change someone’s sexual or gender identity, even through something as subtle as prayer, is conversion therapy.”

But in her video, Emily said: “It’s not gay to straight, it’s lost to saved. God calls us not to heterosexuality but to holiness.

“Even though the world would paint a totally different story of what sexuality is and isn’t, God’s word is clear, and he can save and he does and he will.”

Scenario 1: The Feds have captured a man involved in an extremist militia group. Through surveillance they have determined he was/is involved in the planning of an upcoming terrorist attack. Specifically, an impending bomb attack in a populated area, like a shopping mall or high street - somewhere that will potentially cause hundreds of casualties. Authorities are sweeping all likely buildings, but with no concrete details it's unlikely to be successful. Under standard interrogation he reveals that the bomb has been planted and the clock is ticking - it will explode in about 12 hours, but refuses to divulge its location. What do you do?

Scenario 2: The CIA have picked up a leading terror suspect. He is suspected of stealing a nuclear device from the Ruskies and according to surveillance the CIA has firm reason to believe that he is currently shipping it to your country - you have 12 hours maximum before the ship reaches any destination in your country, figuring in loading and unloading times. Unfortunately they haven't picked up the name of the ship or its destination, and once again he'd refusing to talk. The authorities are on the lookout for suspicious activity around ports, but without more concrete details there's a good chance that the stolen nuke will slip through and cause potentially millions of casualties. He refuses to say anything. What do you do?

Scenario 3: A ruthless criminal gang have kidnapped your close loved ones - wife/mother/sister/daughter/husband/father/brother/son, delete as applicable. You receive note asking for a ransom of $1 million in 12 hours. The police tell you that in 100% of cases involving this particular gang, even if the ransom is delivered the captees are murdered anyway. Fortunately meticulous forensics performed on the ransom note - DNA and fingerprints - are already on the police radar and they pick up the suspect. They recognise him as one of the head-honchos of the gang who, if he doesn't know where your family are, at least knows where to find someone who does. He's the only lead you have, but isn't saying a word. What do you do?

All 3 scenarios, "I'd personally break out the thumbscrews and harsh methods right away."

These scenarios aren't real and don't happen. But if they did, I wouldn't hesitate. Of course it would be part of a more complex good cop/bad cop setup, but I'd prefer to be the bad cop.

In each of these cases you present some kind of assurance that the suspect has actual information that could be revealed. But only an idiot says "I know where the bomb is and I won't tell you" because he is inviting torture. Now if you have nothing but suspicion, you can't use torture, because that would make you evil. But if I do know someone has information that would save lives and might be revealed by torture, I have no reason to hesitate.

Well, I got to figure that with the nuke example, with the stakes that high, I really don't have much to lose. Maybe the torture won't work, but there's a chance that it might, and the bomb can be stopped. If we don't torture him, there's no chance. It's as good as if I set the bomb off myself.

Either way, I've got the blood of at least one person on my hands—I just have the chance to keep the blood of 999,999 others off of them.

Of course, there's also the Realpolitik take on the situation—stopping the bomb might prevent a nuclear retaliation on the terror group and/or any country that was harboring them, which could conceivably be much MORE than a million people. Especially if there was a risk of word getting out that a government agent had the chance to get information out of the terrorist that could have stopped the bomb, but didn't, because he thought it would be immoral—otherwise, the government risks getting voted out (or toppled) in exchange for the kind of leaders who'd vow to never let that massacre happen again. At any cost.

In practical terms, that'd probably set back the cause of human rights and ethical government action back a lot farther and a lot faster than one would-be mass murderer coming to harm, and then quietly "disappearing."

But where do you draw the line? Would you torture an innocent person if it would save a million lives?

Take this for an example...the nuke terrorist has a five year old girl, who he loves dearly. Who you've also managed to take into custody, and is in the next room over.